logo
g Text Version
Beauty & Self
Books & Music
Career
Computers
Education
Family
Food & Wine
Health & Fitness
Hobbies & Crafts
Home & Garden
Money
News & Politics
Relationships
Religion & Spirituality
Sports
Travel & Culture
TV & Movies

dailyclick
Bored? Games!
Nutrition
Postcards
Take a Quiz
Rate My Photo

new
Houseplants
Romance Movies
Creativity
Family Travel
Southwest USA
Irish Culture
Home Finance


dailyclick
All times in EST

Clairvoyance: 08:00 PM

Full Schedule
g
g Motorsports Site

BellaOnline's Motorsports Editor

g

The Superlicence Debate

Guest Author - Christine Blachford

To be allowed on the grid in Formula 1, a driver must be equipped with a Superlicence. The requirements are a certain amount of money and for a driver to have completed a specified amount of miles in an F1 car, usually through testing.

During 2007, the FIA announced a severe price hike in the cost of a Superlicence, with the basic cost rising from under 2,000, to 10,000. On top of that, a driver has to pay depending on how many points he scored the previous year. It was under 500 per point, but rose to over 2,000. That means for the 2008 season, Hamilton will be paying almost 220,000 for his fee, whilst Sutil will pay just over 1,300.

Numbers aside, the first problem with this is that it makes no sense for the driver who has the most experience, drove safely enough to score more points than anyone else, and probably grabbed himself a championship, has to pay more. What is it about a point that means you have to fork out more money? It's arguable that those who score less points should pay more, because the chances are they are slower, more prone to accidents. That's a sweeping generalisation, obviously, but it doesn't make sense for a rookie to pay so much less than a defending champion. Perhaps it would be fairer for there to be a standard fee, no matter how much experience you have.

The next problem is that it seems like an awful lot of money for what is essentially an admin and insurance policy. The GPDA have written a letter to Max Mosley and said that drivers don't have a problem paying for a licence, but it seems very unfair for them to become another revenue stream for the FIA. This seems to be a fair and valid point, but the FIA have responded saying that the fee isn't going to be changed.

In some cases, probably all, the licence fee is payed for by the teams that employ the driver. It seems a waste of time for a team with a big budget, employing a driver with a massive salary to complain about a relatively small cost like this. But as with most things in Formula 1, it's the principal that is at stake, and at the moment, it's not clear who is going to win this battle of wills.
This site needs an editor - click to learn more!

Add The+Superlicence+Debate to Twitter Add The+Superlicence+Debate to Facebook Add The+Superlicence+Debate to MySpace Add The+Superlicence+Debate to Del.icio.us Digg The+Superlicence+Debate Add The+Superlicence+Debate to Yahoo My Web Add The+Superlicence+Debate to Google Bookmarks Add The+Superlicence+Debate to Stumbleupon Add The+Superlicence+Debate to Reddit




FIA Publish Medals Analysis
ING to Cut Back on Sponsorship
FIA Clarify 2009 Regulations
RSS
Related Articles
Editor's Picks Articles
Top Ten Articles
Previous Features
Site Map


For FREE email updates, subscribe to the Motorsports Newsletter


Past Issues


print
Printer Friendly
bookmark
Bookmark
tell friend
Tell a Friend
forum
Forum
email
Email Editor


Content copyright © 2014 by Christine Blachford. All rights reserved.
This content was written by Christine Blachford. If you wish to use this content in any manner, you need written permission. Contact BellaOnline Administration for details.

g


g features
Archives | Site Map

forum
Forum
email
Contact

Past Issues
memberscenter


vote
Poetry
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Less than Monthly



BellaOnline on Facebook
g


| About BellaOnline | Privacy Policy | Advertising | Become an Editor |
Website copyright © 2014 Minerva WebWorks LLC. All rights reserved.


BellaOnline Editor